Citation network
United States Vs. Rodriquez
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 19, 2008
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Syllabus October Term, 2007 United States V. RodriquezSearch
-
s understanding of recidivism statutes has been has squarely rejected. See, e.g., Nichols v. UnitedSearch
-
s suggestion, United States v. LaBonteSearch
-
s reliance on Taylor v. UnitedSearch
-
JJ., joined. Souter, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. United States v. RodriquezSearch
-
Opinion of the Court United States V. RodriquezSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 06-1646 United States, Petitioner V. GinoSearch
-
at 9, App. 254. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, applying its prior precedent in United States v. Corona-SanchezSearch
-
s decision in United States v. HentonSearch
-
see Mutascu v. GonzalesSearch
-
United States v. WilliamsSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
the defendant would have been sorely misled and would have a ground for moving to withdraw the plea. See United States v. GonzalezSearch
-
United States v. HarringtonSearch
-
future danger and therefore warrants an increased sentence for purposes of deterrence and incapacitation. See Witte v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief for Respondent 11. But we have squarely rejected this understanding of recidivism statutes. In Nichols v. UnitedSearch
-
Id. , at 747 (quoting Baldasar v. IllinoisSearch
-
approach that we used in Taylor v. UnitedSearch
-
courts already consult for the purpose of determining if a past conviction qualifies as an ACCA predicate. See Shepard v. UnitedSearch
-
Alexander v. StateSearch
-
Bunnell v. SuperiorSearch
-
guidelines systems that allowed for sentences in excess of the recommended range in various circumstances, see People v. MilesSearch
-
Staats v. StateSearch
-
State v. ArmstrongSearch
-
State v. MortlandSearch
-
Walker v. StateSearch
-
Commonwealth v. MillsSearch
-
Souter, J., Dissenting United States V. RodriquezSearch
-
for past crimes, for purposes of double-jeopardy and right-to-counsel enquiries. See ante , at 7 (citing Nichols v. UnitedSearch
-
States , 511 U. S. 738 , 747 (1994), and Gryger v. BurkeSearch
-
third such conviction incurs a mandatory life sentence). Cf. Ewing v. CaliforniaSearch
-
between them, when the way to avoid conflict is not clear cut even for the state courts, see, e.g., Goldberg v. StateSearch
-
s decision in Mikell v. StateSearch
-
State v. KeithSearch
-
N. M. 462, 697 P. 2d 145 (App. 1985) (specific trumps general). Cf. Clines v. StateSearch
-
offense under state law is not always an easy thing. See People v. WileySearch
-
s law takes account of prior offenses in other States, see Timothy v. StateSearch
-
s recidivism enhancements, thus overruling its own 2-year-old decision, Butts v. StateSearch
-
See, e.g. , Commonwealth v. FernandesSearch
-
U. S. 336 , 347 (1971) (quoting United States v. FisherSearch
-
to resolve questions both about metes and bounds of criminal conduct and about the severity of sentencing. See Bifulco v. UnitedSearch
-
Ladner v. UnitedSearch
-
that motivates the lenity rule, McBoyle v. UnitedSearch
-
Nichols v. UnitedSearch
-
Taylor v. UnitedSearch
-
United States, Petitioner V. GinoSearch
-
United States v. Corona-SanchezSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial